North DakotaPark River

Good Samaritan Society - Park River

301 South County Road 12b, Park River, ND 58270 · Walsh County · 44 certified beds · avg 43 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1984

Part of chain: GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY (92 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$42,181
Fines, last 3 years
3.81
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (29)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Aug 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Aug 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · from a complaint
Jul 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Jun 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jun 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202330E
2024170E
202590E

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

1 fine totaling $42,181.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jan 14, 2026Fine$42,181

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityNorth Dakota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.815.153.95bottom 4% in North Dakota; top 48% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.881.090.69bottom 26% in North Dakota; top 22% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.174.433.50bottom 4% in North Dakota; bottom 40% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.470.590.48bottom 34% in North Dakota; top 37% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)47.448.845.8top 40% in North Dakota; bottom 43% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)36.440.342.9bottom 48% in North Dakota; top 40% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.02, RN 0.70, weekend 2.51. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
SanfordOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan SocietyOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
Cain, JamesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Carlson, LaraIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE07/17/2022
Dykhouse, DanaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Engbrecht, WesleyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Fluit, JoelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Gassen, WilliamIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Gassen, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Gulsvig, NeilIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Herseth Sandlin, StephanieIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Johnson, JoelIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2013
Lundeen, MarkIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Middleton, AimeeIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/27/2022
Molbert, LaurisIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Morrison, TonyIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2019
North, AndrewIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/30/2024
Olson, NicholasIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/08/2024
Rogers, MichaelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/13/2022
Schema, NathanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Lutheran Sunset Home18.7 miGrafton, ND★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

All facilities in Park River →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 355089.